REF 2021: exceptions to the open access compliance requirements

Guest post by Alexander Carter

With the REF 2021 fast approaching and the various delays caused by COVID-19, academics may find that some of their in-scope GALA deposits may appear non-compliant with REF 2021’s open access policy for a variety of reasons.

However, REF 2021 have provided a range of appropriate exceptions that can potentially be applied to in-scope outputs, depending on the circumstances. Some of these exceptions may be used relatively often and may be more well known, but there are some that perhaps require greater explanation.

In this document, we have created a list of all the defined exceptions that can be applied in GALA, and provide further explanation in how they may be used when we come to submission. It is important that authors understand the exceptions as they will have to sign off on any exceptions used to help validate their usage in REF 2021, and we will provide more information on this in the coming months.

Before we get into that though, we would like to stress that academics who wish to use these exceptions understand the following:

  • as paragraph 91 of the Guidance on submissions notes, “[a]ll information provided by HEIs in submissions to REF 2021 must be capable of verification.” As such, exceptions must be able to be substantiated under audit
  • only one exception can be used to make a record compliant
  • exceptions should only be used as a last resort, where applicable. If a record can be made compliant according to the REF 2021 guidelines, then an exception will not be applied

Deposit Exceptions

The following exceptions deal with cases where the output is unable to meet the deposit requirements. In the following cases, the output will not be required to meet any of the open access criteria (deposit, discovery or access requirements).

Deposit exceptions are used when either a GALA record or Author’s Accepted Manuscript (AAM) has been deposited late. According to the REF 2021 guidelines, if an output was accepted on or after the 1st April 2018 then both the GALA record and AAM need to be deposited within 3 months of the acceptance date. (If the output was accepted between the 1st April 2016 and the 31st March 2018 then it’s 3 months after publication.)

At the point of acceptance, it was not possible to secure the use of a repository.

This exception may be used where, for instance, a new academic has joined the University of Greenwich and has published a piece of research, but they have not yet been given a GALA account. The lack of a GALA account may result in a GALA record not being deposited until the deadline has passed and thus causes non-compliance.

There was a delay in securing the final peer-reviewed text (for instance, where a paper has multiple authors).

It is common for academics to work alongside other academics from different institutions, with one of them becoming the corresponding author. Usually the corresponding author would hold the final AAM in their possession. This can result in Greenwich authors being delayed in depositing the AAM from communication issues and their record will be made non-compliant.  

The staff member to whom the output is attributed was not employed on a Category A eligible contract by a UK HEI (defined in paragraphs 52 to 63) at the time of submission for publication.

The University of Greenwich employs academics from a diverse range of countries, many of whom have various interpretations, definitions, and practices around open access. This can result in an academic’s previous research outputs becoming non-compliant when judged against the REF 2021 open access guidelines. Additionally, an author may also miss the deadline to deposit these historic outputs in GALA.

It would be unlawful to deposit, or request the deposit of, the output.

As the title implies if the academic can provide reasonable evidence that the deposit, or request to deposit, of the output would be unlawful then this exception can be implied.

Depositing the output would present a security risk.

Like the previous exception only in relation to it being a security risk instead of being unlawful.

Access Exceptions

The following exceptions deal with cases where deposit of the output is possible, but there are issues to do with meeting the access requirements. In the following cases, the output will still be required to meet the deposit and discovery requirements, but not the access requirements. A closed-access deposit, where allowed, will be required.

Access exceptions relate to when an output has been deposited but can’t be accessed. For the University of Greenwich this largely revolves around embargo issues, where an AAM has been restricted for longer than allowed. Please note though that the output still needs to meet deposit and discovery requirements.

The output depends on the reproduction of third-party content for which open access rights could not be granted (either within the specified timescales, or at all).

Some outputs rely on the reproduction of third-party content. They are usually allowed to be seen by subscribers/paid members, but not allowed on open access repositories like GALA. If this content is fundamental in understanding the output, then this exception may be applied.

The publication concerned requires an embargo period that exceeds the stated maxima, and was the most appropriate publication for the output.

If an academic would like to go through the Green open access route, then the publisher may require an embargo be placed on their AAM. For their output to become compliant for REF 2021, they need to make sure they do not exceed the stated maxima:

  • 12 months for Main Panel A and Main Panel B
  • 24 months for Main Panel C and Main Panel D

If the output’s embargo is longer than what is allowed, then it will become non-compliant. However, if the academic can justify that their selected publication was the most appropriate, this exception can be applied.  

The publication concerned actively disallows open-access deposit in a repository, and was the most appropriate publication for the output.

Like the previous exception, only this time it relates to publications that do not allow any kind of open access. Normally this is present in closed practice publications, where the reader can’t even get to the abstract without a subscription.

Technical Exceptions

The following exceptions deal with cases where an output is unable to meet the criteria due to a technical issue. In the following cases, the output will not be required to meet the open access criteria (deposit, discovery or access requirements).

At the point of acceptance, the staff member to whom the output is attributed was employed at a different UK HEI, and it has not been possible to determine compliance with the criteria.

The university employs academics from a variety of UK HEIs. Some of these academics may want to submit one of their previous outputs for the REF, however the vast majority of these will be non-compliant when they appear on GALA. Consequently, this exception can be used for outputs produced prior to being under contract at the University of Greenwich.

The repository experienced a short-term or transient failure that prevented compliance with the criteria (this should not apply to systemic issues).

If GALA experiences technical issues that cause an output to be non-compliant then we can use this exception. This is provided the issue isn’t systemic, such as routine updates where GALA needs to be shutdown. This is an exception that we can support the validation of and sign-off on its use.

An external service provider failure prevented compliance (for instance, a subject repository did not enable open access at the end of the embargo period, or a subject repository ceased to operate).

When an external service provider is the cause of non-compliance. An example would be a publisher delaying their publication due to COVID-19.

Further Exceptions

‘Other exception’ should be used where an output is unable to meet the criteria due to circumstances beyond the control of the HEI, including extenuating personal circumstances of the author (such as periods of extended leave), industrial action, closure days, and software problems beyond those listed in the technical exceptions. If ‘other’ exception is selected, the output will not need to meet the open access criteria (deposit, discovery or access requirements).

If an output is deemed non-compliant and none of the other exceptions can be applied, then this exception may potentially be used. However, a high standard is required to be satisfied and the exception should only be used in the limited circumstances that it is applicable to. REF2021 have noted that excessive use of this exception across a submission will lead to greater compliance interrogation of the university’s submission to REF2021.

The output was not deposited within three months of acceptance date, but was deposited within three months of the earliest date of publication. In this instance, the output will need to meet all other policy requirements. This exception does not need to be applied retrospectively to outputs compliant with the policy from 1 April 2016 to 1 April 2018 which fulfilled the policy requirements within three months of publication.

Next stage

As the outputs for the university’s submission to REF 2021 are finalised, we will undertake an analysis of the compliance status of all of the identified in-scope outputs. Where outputs appear non-compliant, we will liaise with authors to identify the possible use of any exceptions and ask authors to sign-off on their usage.